Transcript Highlights:

• On slide 11 is the analysis speaking to that point.
• The culture, in my opinion, Madam Chair, is that when we get a fiscal analysis, it assumes zero economic
• They don't have a cost-benefit analysis.
• What they don't have at this point is a cost-benefit analysis.
• Representative, I think it's in the coming fiscal year.

Transcript Highlights:

• We provided an analysis of the impact, but then we were also asked to provide a hypothetical analysis
• 23 and 242 million in fiscal 24.
• 23 and 110 million in fiscal 24.
• You can also see that that includes an analysis of their star performance, an analysis their CCMR performance
• I went back and looked at the fiscal note, the fiscal note was about a million dollars a year.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks. fiscal note. It's still confusing that fiscal note.
• analysis using economic analysis analysis using economic analysis division<01:25:55.280> statistics
• So a lot of escrow analysis. Right?
• Sacket has some additional fiscal Sacket has some additional fiscal information<02:12:44.560>
• The fiscal note is on page 39. The fiscal note is on page 39.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator, this is an Office of Fiscal Analysis publication, and I think they're reflecting the appropriation
• Again, Senator, this is an Office of Fiscal Analysis publication.
• Again, Senator, this is an Office of Fiscal Analysis publication.
• To the other expenses account to cover operational needs for the remainder of the fiscal year.
• My name is Mary Greene, and I am the fiscal manager of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Keywords: 962, all

Summary: The Finance Advisory Committee approved the minutes of its April 2 meeting and then took up three budget transfers. The first, FAC 2026-6 for the Office of the State Treasurer, moved $75,000 from personal services to other expenses to pay for consultant help applying for federal energy credits under the Inflation Reduction Act’s direct pay provisions. Treasurer’s office staff said the agency had one open position and several others pending posting, and members discussed how the transfer related to vacant positions and the committee’s budget display. The second item, FAC 2026-7 for the Office of the State Controller, transferred $700,000 from personal services to other expenses to cover higher Core-CT software maintenance and licensing costs. Comptroller staff said the office had 21 open positions, most in Core-CT, and explained that the system, implemented in 2003, receives regular quarterly and monthly updates from Oracle. Members also discussed how the system serves payroll, HR, purchasing, accounting, and related functions for many state agencies, including UConn and the Board of Regents. The final item, FAC 2026-8 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, transferred $700,000 from personal services, the veterans opportunity pilot, and headstones accounts to other expenses for year-end operational needs. Commissioner Ron Welch said most vacancies were in the skilled nursing facility, food service, and physical plant, with staffing challenges especially for nurses and aides. He also explained that the veterans opportunity pilot never fully launched, that the Institutional General Welfare Fund has been depleted and the agency now relies more on general fund support, and that the department faces rising food, utility, and pharmaceutical costs, including a federal VA reimbursement change that will leave the state responsible for medication costs by 2027. All three transfers were approved, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:08:32.159> year Um, and that is for federal fiscal year Um, and that is for federal fiscal
• We will not get our federal fiscal 24.
• The following fiscal year, because it's a full federal fiscal year, will be just under $16 million of
• 09:35.040> it's<01:09:35.359> a following fiscal year, because it's a following fiscal
• > the<04:36:04.561> bill fiscal note on the bill fiscal note on the bill on<04:36:06.879

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting covered two committee of conference items. On HB 1260, the House and Senate debated a Senate amendment dealing with sealing certain divorce-related financial records. House members argued the amendment conflicted with the Keane Sentinel decision and would improperly flip the burden of proof on public access to court records, raising constitutional concerns under the state constitution’s open government and privacy provisions. Senate members responded that the privacy amendment and modern conditions support more protection for sensitive financial information, especially in limited uncontested divorces, but several members agreed the issue should be studied in a separate bill with a full hearing next year rather than resolved in conference. The committee ultimately voted unanimously to have the Senate recede and pass HB 1260 in the form originally passed by the House, preserving the underlying bill without the Senate amendment. The committee then took up HB 1574, which extends free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs and provides funding for SNAP administrative costs. The main dispute was the Senate’s addition of $4.4 million for SNAP administration. Senator Gray and DHHS officials said federal changes will shift more administrative costs to the state and that underfunding administration could raise the SNAP error rate, which could trigger future federal penalties and larger state costs; DHHS reported a current error rate of 7.57%, below the national average, and said a higher error rate could cost the state roughly $12 million in a partial fiscal year and nearly $16 million in a full year. Representative Papovich said he understood the department’s needs but was reluctant to support the bill as amended, noting the Senate language resembled a prior bill that had already failed in the House. The discussion ended with the committee still considering the Senate amendment, with members weighing the immediate appropriation against possible future costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's $89 million above the last fiscal year to date, around 1.7% above last fiscal year to date.
• That's up $163.7 million from last fiscal year to date, from those first eight months of the last fiscal
• And again, they said they'd do that every year, an analysis on it.
• by DSB to mitigate the effect that a lack of fiscal resources...”
• “Our fiscal operation was centralized. They used to do their own fiscal operation; DSB did.

Summary: The meeting began with a prayer, approval of the prior minutes, and a February 2026 revenue report from Carlos Silva of the Bureau of Legislative Research. He reported gross revenues of $5.36 billion and net collections of $4.5 billion, both above the prior year, and said the updated forecast showed a larger expected surplus than before. Members asked about declines in some tax categories, natural gas severance fees, and possible effects of inflation and international conflict; Silva generally attributed the changes to timing issues, prior tax cuts, refund activity, and price fluctuations, and said he could not speculate on future impacts. The committee then heard and adopted several subcommittee reports, including the Executive Committee, Administrative Rules, Claims Review, Game and Fish State Police, Higher Education, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Hospital/Medicaid/Developmental Disabilities, Occupational Licensing Review, State Insurance Programs Oversight, and APER filings. Most reports were approved without objection. One budget classification transfer for the Commissioner of State Lands was reviewed and failed. The review report also led to discussion of several contracts, including DHS staffing contracts and a Department of Education security contract, with some items held or separated for individual votes. A major portion of the meeting focused on DHS and state staffing contracts for the Human Development Centers, Arkansas State Hospital, and related facilities. DHS officials said the contracts were on track against seven-year projections, but members expressed concern about heavy reliance on contract labor, vacancy rates, and the need to move workers onto state payrolls. Officials said they were preparing a recruitment and retention plan and described staffing levels, vacancies, and turnover. Members also questioned contract projections and federal-state funding matches, and several urged faster action to reduce contract labor costs. The committee also discussed a Department of Commerce reduction-in-force affecting the Division of Services for the Blind and Employment and Training. Secretary Hugh McDonald said the cuts were driven by funding shortfalls, over-obligation of funds, and federal issues, and that 27 positions would be permanently eliminated while furloughed employees would be recalled. Members raised concerns about service impacts, board appointments, and the division’s fiscal management. The meeting ended after the personnel report was adopted and APER was filed as reviewed, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Have you done an analysis with the workforce training groups?
• And I was really looking forward to seeing the analysis on this bill.
• Fiscal year 2028, $105 million worth of projects. Thank you.
• Fiscal year 2028, $105 million worth of projects.
• Fiscal year 2029, we're showing $200,287.50 worth of projects.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee heard a District 5 New Mexico Department of Transportation presentation from Rhonda Lopez, who reviewed the district’s FY26 budget, staffing vacancies, and the status of special appropriations from 2020 through 2025. She described numerous completed and ongoing projects across the district, including roadway overlays, bridge work, intersection improvements, ADA upgrades, and maintenance projects, and also summarized STIP, TPF, LGRF, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64 in Hogback, the 5% local match for TPF projects, and the status of the New Mexico 371/U.S. 36 intersection funding agreement with the Navajo Nation; DOT said the match is secured or waived where applicable and that the Navajo agreement is nearly finalized. The committee then heard House Bill 270, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice Training Act to require contributions to apprenticeship and training programs for certain public works contracts, including highway-related work, while creating an exception where no approved apprenticeship program exists for a trade classification. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen workforce development and support apprenticeship training. Contractors and asphalt industry representatives opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training contributions. A motion to table failed on a tie, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie, leaving the bill in committee. Next, the committee heard House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, dedicate additional revenue sources including a portion of electricity GRT and motor vehicle excise tax, and begin annual distributions for federal matching funds in 2029. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would help address a multi-billion-dollar road funding gap, improve maintenance, and provide a stable source for matching federal dollars. Some members raised concerns about the electricity tax component, its effect on utility bills, and overlap with recently enacted transportation financing measures; others supported the concept but questioned timing and funding priorities. A motion on the bill resulted in a tie and failed, leaving the bill in committee. The meeting concluded with a District 4 NMDOT legislative presentation. The district outlined its geography, budget, staffing vacancy rate, completed special appropriations, active construction and maintenance projects, wildfire-related recovery work, local government funding allocations, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of local funding and the impact of aging equipment and weather on maintenance costs. The presentation ended without any formal action on District 4 items, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fiscal year 27, they'll keep flowing out.
• year 27 through 29. in future fiscal years from the PERF, if you all chose.
• possible. get past my desk without the highest level of evaluation analysis possible.
• So that's the final analysis that's run later to understand how it impacted fidelity.
• And so what's different about these is that they'll be over those three fiscal years.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then third, I'll go over our office's analysis and recommendations. Thank you.
• And that number holds pretty steady across several fiscal years.
• I mean, what you're describing sounds like a qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative analysis
• The vacancy reduction effort went into place at the beginning of the 2024 fiscal year.
• At the beginning of the 2024 fiscal year, we had gotten it down to 15%.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extensive discussion on the Governor’s proposal to eliminate vacant positions across several environmental and natural resources departments, including Fish and Wildlife, Parks, the Coastal Commission/BCDC, DPR, DTSC, CalRecycle, and the State Water Resources Control Board. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that the JLBC had already not concurred with 650 of roughly 1,000 positions under review, citing concerns that many of the vacancies support core functions such as law enforcement, permitting, public safety, sea-level rise planning, and implementation of recently enacted laws. The Department of Finance defended the vacancy reduction exercise as a way to capture savings from a statewide pool of about 40,000 vacancies, arguing that departments need flexibility to manage operations and that some vacancies are used to cover operating costs or hard-to-fill roles. Several department representatives testified that the cuts would reduce capacity and could slow permitting or enforcement, though they said they would try to reclassify positions and prioritize the highest-need work. No vote was taken and all items were held open for a future hearing. Members focused heavily on the practical effects of the cuts. Senators questioned whether vacant positions should be treated as a budget savings tool, whether special-fund positions should be eliminated when they do not affect the General Fund, and whether long-vacant positions should simply be removed if they have not been filled for years. Fish and Wildlife and Parks described impacts to permitting, wildlife conflict response, and law enforcement; Parks said its academy can train only about 50 rangers a year, leaving many vacancies even after the proposed reductions. The Coastal Commission said the affected positions support SB 272 sea-level rise planning with local governments. DPR said the proposed cuts would affect multiple branches involved in pesticide registration, enforcement, and safety review, while DTSC said it was still hiring from a large 2022 reform package and had reduced its vacancy rate from about 30 percent to 15 percent before the drill. The State Water Board said its proposed reductions would be spread across programs and could lead to slower permitting and backlogs, though it would protect drinking water functions as much as possible. The committee then moved to a State Water Resources Control Board overview and a new budget proposal tied to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision. Chair Esquivel described the board’s responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and financial assistance, and said the board is updating the Bay-Delta Plan while also pursuing voluntary agreements and broader water-rights administration. He said federal workforce reductions and the Sackett ruling have increased pressure on state programs. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund to address permitting and enforcement gaps created by the narrowing of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals because it was supported by the board’s data and would help maintain water-quality protections, though it noted that state processes are less efficient than the federal framework they are now partially replacing.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, John, you do great work on the enrollment analysis, and I appreciate your attention to things
• Based on my analysis from the subcommittee, Gallup currently has 10 outstanding.
• Our board is pretty fiscally conservative, but from a city standpoint, we've got a letter of support
• This is a summary of Fiscal Year 25 that just ended June 30.
• The four positions we're requesting at this time, the first is a fiscal analyst.

Transcript Highlights:

• Everyone, please remember this analysis... All right, members, thank you for being here.
• So there would still be a fiscal note of roughly $500,000 to this.
• So there would still be a fiscal note of roughly $500,000 to this.
• financial accounting, the cost-benefit analysis, and all of the description.
• And just so everyone realizes, too, there is a fiscal note.

Summary: The House Committee on Health and Welfare met on May 26 for what was described as the last meeting of the legislative session. H.R. 318 was voluntarily deferred without discussion. The committee first took up H.R. 298, which would have directed the Louisiana Department of Health, with the legislative auditor, to study LDH’s relationships with certain nonprofits, foundations, professional associations, and other nongovernmental entities. The author presented amendments narrowing the definitions, but LDH testified the language was still too broad, would still require substantial review of contracts, memberships, conferences, and related interactions, and would still carry a significant fiscal note. Members raised concerns that hospitals, provider associations, nonprofit care facilities, and other stakeholders could be swept in. The author then voluntarily deferred the resolution, and the committee agreed without objection. The committee then heard Senate Bill 405, which establishes a statewide quality oversight initiative for nursing facilities, directs LDH to work with facilities on care standards and remediation for lower-rated homes, and requires reporting and transparency for families. The bill drew broad support from members and stakeholders, including nursing home and senior advocacy groups, and was reported favorably without objection. House Resolution 290, which asked LDH to study a possible correlation between gender-affirming hormone therapy medications and psychosis or related psychiatric conditions in people 26 and younger, prompted questions about the purpose of the study and concerns that it could affect broader policy debates. The author, a licensed clinical social worker, said the request was intended to examine whether medications were being used too quickly and what effects they might have on adolescent mental health; after discussion, the author voluntarily deferred the resolution, and the committee agreed. Finally, the committee considered Senate Concurrent Resolution 61, urging LDH and commercial insurers to increase reimbursement rates for behavioral health crisis centers operating under a crisis receiving center license. Testimony focused on the Bridge Center for Hope, described as the state’s only Level 3 crisis receiving center, and the need to revisit Medicaid reimbursement for the first 23 hours of crisis care. With no questions or objections, the resolution was adopted. The meeting ended with members thanking the chair and staff, and the committee adjourned for the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving on to the highlights for fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 30, when you look at the rates, the
• And an estimated column there for fiscal year 27.
• Moving on to fiscal year 26, as I mentioned, year-over-year growth is 0.4% over fiscal year 25, and estimated
• The trend is an analysis for us.
• I understand that analysis and get it.

Transcript Highlights:

• year, fiscal 27, is almost 0.8% less than the originally enacted estimate.
• /c><00:03:42.640> almost<00:03:43.440> 0.8% fiscal year, fiscal 27, is almost 0.8% fiscal
• the Medicaid budget in the first fiscal the Medicaid budget in the first fiscal year.<00:10:13.120
• That shows you what's fund in fiscal 28.
• "The best analysis that I've seen over my career is two things.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:11 Executive Budget 00:00:50, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a presentation from Dr. Hicks on the governor’s recommended budget for the next biennium. He reviewed the revenue outlook, noting modest general fund growth, a large rainy day fund balance, and the impact of recent income tax reductions. He said the budget was built around recurring reductions, lower debt service and retirement contribution rates, and the use of excess restricted funds, while protecting K-12 education, Medicaid, postsecondary education, public safety, and pension obligations. Dr. Hicks outlined several major spending and reserve proposals, including $350 million from the Department of Insurance’s excess restricted funds to support Medicaid in the first year, $150 million for the affordable housing trust fund, $125 million for rural hospitals, $100 million to offset lost federal ACA premium tax credits, $75 million for utility assistance, and $50 million for food assistance. In education, the proposal included a phased pre-K for all plan funded by sports wagering tax revenue, a 3% annual salary increase for full-time school personnel, continued full funding of teacher pensions, a 2.5% annual increase in SEEK base funding, and additional support for career and technical education and school facilities. He also discussed Medicaid cost pressures, including higher managed care, pharmacy, behavioral health, and nursing facility costs, and explained the expected effects of federal HR1 changes on Kentucky’s Medicaid program. Those changes include work and community engagement requirements and more frequent eligibility redeterminations for expansion members, which the administration estimated would reduce enrollment by about 4,300 in the first year and 28,000 in the second year. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting, which was limited to the budget presentation and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hennepin County's share of that is about $34 million in fiscal year 2025 and about $37 million in fiscal
• And in fiscal year 2025, that amount is about $16.6 million a year. about 37 million in fiscal year 2026
• And in fiscal year should come from.
• ,<00:43:05.760> and environmental analysis, and environmental analysis, and administration
• engineering, and environmental analysis engineering, and environmental analysis administration.<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• First and foremost, we are here to be strong and transparent fiscal stewards for California's taxpayers
• Where maybe the department makes some kind of qualitative analysis.
• We believe that the focus at budget time should be on the fiscal picture.
• We raised a number of concerns with the proposal in an analysis earlier this year.
• Yeah, we've been doing an analysis of target drugs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• director<00:03:52.000> with Danielson, fiscal policy director with Danielson, fiscal policy
• I know that the University of Minnesota Extension does some economic analysis.
• This is asking for a economic analysis.
• It has no fiscal note.
• It has no fiscal note. It Minnesota. It has no fiscal note.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 4949, as amended by the adopted H4949A2 and H4949A3 amendments. The bill would create a sports and events reimbursement program intended to give Minnesota a more reliable funding mechanism to compete for major sporting and entertainment events. Representative Lislegard and supporters argued that events such as the Super Bowl, NFL Draft, Final Four, World Juniors Hockey, and Olympic trials generate substantial economic activity, tax revenue, and statewide visibility, and that Minnesota has lost opportunities because it lacks a standing competitive fund. Testifiers from the Minnesota Business Partnership and Minnesota Sports and Events strongly supported the bill, describing it as a performance-based, closed-loop model that reinvests tax revenue generated by events into securing future events. Jess Graba, Cheryl Lindsey, and Dr. William Campbell emphasized community benefits beyond economics, including youth inspiration, school improvements, inclusion, and positive local engagement tied to events like the Olympic trials, the Women’s Final Four, and WWE appearances. Several testifiers cited specific figures, including roughly $71.5 million in economic impact and $4.7 million in tax revenue for World Juniors, about $74.8 million and $5.7 million for the gymnastics trials, and more than $430 million in lost economic impact from events Minnesota did not secure. Members raised concerns about the funding mechanism, especially the use of revenue that would otherwise go to the general fund or other accounts. Representative Huot said he supported bringing events to Minnesota but was uneasy about diverting general fund money and suggested stronger legislative oversight, possibly through a formal sports committee. Representative Youakim asked how the bill’s revenue capture would work and noted concerns about taking money from transportation-related accounts; staff explained that the amended bill affects seven state taxes and a fee, including motor vehicle rental taxes and the retail delivery fee, with some revenue directed to non-general fund accounts. Members also requested more information on the methodology behind the University of Minnesota Extension economic impact studies, and staff said those studies could be shared. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• A little bit about the district: our fiscal year 2016 budget.
• We are down in fiscal years 28 and 29. These are unfunded years.
• In Federal Fiscal Year 24, 90 agencies participated.
• Falls under our condition analysis reporting.
• Condition analysis report, we give a score.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> I mean, I think that basically the I think the the... analysis on why this is analysis on why this
• And there's agree with your analysis.
• The following fiscal year, because it's a full federal fiscal year, will be just under $16 million of
• 09:35.040> it's<01:09:35.359> a following fiscal year, because it's a following fiscal
• > the<04:36:04.561> bill fiscal note on the bill fiscal note on the bill on<04:36:06.879

Keywords: 10:00am HB 1260 11:00am HB 1574 12:00pm HB 1816 2:30pm HB 1499 2:45pm HB 1709, 928, house, all

Summary: The conference committee first met on HB 1260, a bill requested by municipal clerks to allow certain divorce-related records to be kept confidential. House members argued the Senate amendment would reverse the presumption of openness established in the Keene Sentinel case and raise constitutional issues under the state constitution’s privacy and open-government provisions. Senate members responded that the 2018 privacy amendment, the limited scope of the proposal, and modern internet risks justified the change, but the House maintained the issue needed a full hearing in a separate bill. The committee ultimately voted unanimously for the Senate to recede and adopt the House version, preserving the underlying bill without the Senate amendment, and both sides said they would revisit the topic in a future session. The committee then took up HB 1574, which extends free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs and provides funding for SNAP administrative costs. The main dispute was the Senate’s addition of $4.4 million for SNAP administration, which DHHS said was needed because federal law would shift more administrative costs to the state and could increase the state’s SNAP error rate, potentially triggering much larger future penalties. DHHS officials reported the current error rate was 7.57% for federal fiscal year 2024, below the national average, and estimated that if the rate rose above 8%, the state could owe about 10% of SNAP benefits, or roughly $12 million for a partial year and nearly $16 million for a full year. Some House members supported the added funding as a preventive measure, while others objected that the underlying bill was modest and the amendment resembled a previously rejected proposal. The discussion ended with the committee moving toward the House position and the bill’s future depending on the chamber’s vote on the Senate amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• But for fiscal year 2024, we received a report of 102 pedestrian fatalities.
• We need to enhance our data collection and analysis.
• With a synthesis, a summary of local government fiscal condition or position.
• We hope that the culmination will provide some semblance of fiscal position or fiscal health of the local
• We pulled them together into some trend analysis. some trend analysis and looking at their ratios.

Transcript Highlights:

• There has not been a comprehensive fiscal analysis of what it will cost the Department of Children and
• There has not been a comprehensive fiscal analysis of what it will cost the Department of Children and
• a bill that has zero fiscal impact.
• That being said, zero fiscal impact still has not only a fiscal impact to Florida's corporations, but
• As I mentioned before, there's been no bill analysis. There's no economic analysis.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee considered a large agenda of bills and reported several measures favorably. Early action included SB 6, a settled claim bill involving the Department of Children and Families and a trust for Leila Estrada and Sapphire Williams, and CS/CS/SB 1266, which creates a cybersecurity experiential learning and clearance-readiness program through the Department of Commerce and Cyber Florida. The committee also approved SB 532 on clerks of court funding, allowing clerks to retain all excess Article V revenue rather than returning half to the state and clarifying foreclosure sale procedures. In addition, the committee passed CS/CS/SB 1602 and CS/CS/SB 1604 to create and fund a pilot housing program for veterans through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, and CS/SB 1110 to expand Medicaid and private insurance coverage for medically necessary orthotics and prosthetics, including testimony from affected families and advocates. The committee also adopted an amendment and then favorably reported CS/CS/SB 1012 on inmate services, removing the bill’s medical-services compensation provisions while retaining changes to the inmate welfare trust fund and related facility uses. It also adopted a delete-all amendment and then favorably reported CS/CS/CS/SB 1614, which was narrowed to remove a provision allowing local governments to use excess fees to construct new buildings. The committee spent substantial time on CS/SB 17, a Medicaid oversight and transparency bill. The sponsor said the measure would create a joint legislative Medicaid oversight committee, authorize the Legislature to retain its own actuary, modernize Medicaid statutes, strengthen managed-care performance standards, and increase accountability for pharmacy benefit managers and related entities. After amendment, the committee adopted changes removing several PBM-related provisions while retaining the broader oversight framework. Testimony from supporters emphasized transparency, fraud prevention, and cost control, while a PBM trade association asked to continue working on affiliate-manufacturer, network, and payment issues. The bill was reported favorably. The most extensive discussion centered on CS/SB 1758, which proposes major changes to Medicaid and SNAP. The sponsor described five reforms: stronger fraud and overpayment recovery authority, a Medicaid work requirement for certain able-bodied adults, expanded behavioral-health services through Medicaid waivers, pharmacy-program changes to obtain rebates and reduce institutional costs, and SNAP/EBT reforms including photo IDs and work requirements. The committee adopted two amendments: one adding a transitional “glide path” for people who gain employment but risk losing Medicaid, and another exempting hospice patients with six months or less to live. Supporters argued the bill would reduce fraud, improve accountability, and encourage work, while opponents warned it would increase administrative burdens, push eligible people off coverage, and conflict with federal law or guidance. The bill remained under debate with extensive public testimony from advocates, providers, and affected families, and the transcript ends before final disposition on the measure.